Translate

Public Stats

Monday, July 30, 2012

John Key says that changing the definition of marriage to include two people of the same-sex will not undermine his marriage to his wife, Bronagh.

“You go through all the merits of the argument and look at what people put up; but my view is that if two gay people want to get married I can’t see why it would undermine my marriage with Bronagh,” he told Radio Live.

Well, good. I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued same-sex marriage would undermine John Key's marriage to his wife, or would indeed undermine any person's marriage.

However, how future generations, including how John Key's children and grandchildren will view marriage is another matter entirely. If you expand a definition enough, it will soon become meaningless.

Already in NZ today, we have young women who don't even contemplate marriage at all. Their idea of a future is to get pregnant to some young man who probably won't stick around and go on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. The DBP has been around for roughly forty years, and I doubt this sort of societal change was obvious at first, but now it's not difficult to find women who are making radically different choices about their lives because it exists and there is no expectation to get married before engaging in activities that result in children.

Otara administrator Delaney Papua, who turns 20 next month and is expecting her first baby in November, says going on the benefit seems to be just what you do when you get pregnant.

"All the people that I know that have kids go on it, so I kind of just assumed that you have to be on that," she says.

The babies' fathers often have no role in the families they help create, giving them no anchor in society. Papua doesn't expect her baby's father to support her.

"He's sending mixed messages, he says one thing and then another. I wouldn't know," she says. "I'd like to have him in the picture - maybe not together as a couple, seeing as we butt heads a lot, but being some sort of support with the baby.

"I don't know any friends that are being supported by their partner. A lot of them are in a relationship, but it will be on and off again, especially after having a child. He'd be working, or he'd lose his job, they're together, they're not together."

Does John Key want a future for his descendants where marriage is rendered so meaningless that no one engages in it any more? A future where very few children will live with their fathers, because there is no expectation that they will? A future where it is the State's job to look after all the mothers and their children because men no longer feel they need to get married in order to get companionship and sex? Expanding the definition of marriage will help in this wholesale decline, because marriage will mean everything and nothing.

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has consistently backed "the biblical definition of a family," and his foundation has contributed to groups working to maintain the traditional definition of a marriage--one man and one woman. He later added, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."

[...]

But three liberal Mayors not only attacked Cathy's beliefs and words, but they threatened to block any Chick-fil-A restaurants from being opened in their cities. Those threats were not veiled.

I'm glad that John Key's marriage won't be undermined by same-sex marriage. However, his marriage is not what is at stake here.

I thought my questions related directly to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has consistently backed "the biblical definition of a family," and his foundation has contributed to groups working to maintain the traditional definition of a marriage--one man and one woman. He later added, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."

If marriage was a registered principle like a patent, the definition is not only protected but also the practice of the idea into being. The principle of marriage is protected by a religious belief as sacred. The misused or misinterpretation by practice is a violation of the mana of believers. And yes, that has a social and spiritual effect on a people.

The red pinko social engineering continues with the bluecoats. John Key has lost heaps of votes in a country where child abuse should be a priority!! But no way as Key wants to give into a minority radical homosexual movement.Pathetic and sad. National are as sick as the rest of the poliltical loons running this country into the ground.

Ok, what is undermined is the object of so-called 'love'. Marriage is implied tradition between one man and one woman, their love is bound by a principle sustained by the practice of caring, compassion, giving, sharing, etc of moral and social values. The practice transcends their marriage into being one.

Love in a same sex relationship is not based on moral or social values, but by the physical attraction hence, lust. The practice of this physical lust results with abuse of the object or body of the so-called loved one. This relationship remains subjective.

Will marriage to a human and dog/goat/sheep or to whatever be legalized?

Afterall you have to cater to all whims and desires of all minorities in a socalled Liberal secular society.

How about being legally able marry your favourite soft toy or a rock?

Let's make it legal to marry a rock. At least with the 'defined' marriage status those who marry a rock will be entitled to all benefits of marriage. Including Tax breaks. I bet some people would marry a rock if they could. The rock is a silent type. It doesn't talk back.

When homosexuality was decriminalized in NZ, we would not have been able to name one country that had redefined marriage to be between two persons of the same-sex. Yet, here we are today, debating same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has only existed in the world since 2001. Not really enough time for the next change to start pushing it's way through. I'd give it 10 more years and we'll start seeing polygamy legalized in the West.

Surely the law is up for revision because society has changed. The way your post comes across, one might think that the law will lead society. in to something. Marriage has been many things, in earlier times marriage had an economic and political basis that would be repugnant to many so-called 'conservatives'.

Gee, I never figured you for a bigot. You appear to be holding on to an archiac view that "marriage" is only between two people, and as we have already heard, any opposition to a more modern concept is simply bigotry, and nothing else.

Will marriage to a human and dog/goat/sheep or to whatever be legalized?

If opposite-sex marriage is deemed to be OK, will those things happen?

Various people who are apparently incapable of distinguishing a logical argument from the urging of their own personal prejudice peddle this "next people will be marrying their pets" non sequitur - with not even a hint of embarrassment. Sad.

“You go through all the merits of the argument and look at what people put up; but my view is that if two gay people want to get married I can’t see why it would undermine my marriage with Bronagh,” he told Radio Live.

Then

Well, good. I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued same-sex marriage would undermine John Key's marriage to his wife, or would indeed undermine any person's marriage.

If the logic says the term marriage can easily be redfined from man/women to two people, why not multiple people?

I think you'll find that various societies at various times have so defined it, no gay marriage required. Polygamy doesn't logically follow from gay marriage any more than it logically follows from heterosexual marriage. It's effectively an unrelated issue, because it deals with the number of people who can marry, not their sexes. In our society we say two only can marry, and the reasons for that requirement stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of the sexes involved. Proponents of polyamory may take heart from marriage law being extended to cover same sex couples, but that's a matter of emotion, not logic. The argument for polyamory is unaffected by gay marriage.

We are in an age where sentimentalism rules more than logic, otherwise redefining marriage from Husband and Wife to Partner and Partner would never have been seriously considered. Polygamy is currently only rife in Muslim societies, yet Muslims are migrating and growing in the West and we will have no good argument against polygamy once same-sex marriage is enacted. It's not an unrelated issue at all.

Polygamy in the way that it is practiced in the Muslim world is at least based on complementarity, with all the women being married to the man rather than each other; and ordered towards the possibility of children. So, not allowing a form of marriage that looks far more like the real thing - while calling a relationship between two of the same sex, marriage - is going to look absurd.

Milt is there something wrong with your head - if you redefine marriage to mean something other than it means to accomadate an interest group then there is no reason why other people with other agendas cannot get it redefined again to accomodate their deepest desires

See the reason why marriage is held in esteem is because as a society we need people to conceive and raise children, which is a time consuming and expensive business.

What so called gay "marriage" does is that it undermines the fundamental thing marriage is for and therefore does not encourage reproduction, a fundamental thing that needs to be done, needs to be done but isn't being done in these enlightened times.

Or at least that's my point. At one point, we were saying "In our society, marriage is between a man and a women" and the response to that was "bigotry".

Yet you suggest that because liberals want to discuss same sex marriage, and haven't tabled multi-partner marriage, it's not bigotry to dismiss the subsequent discussion.

I'm simply observing that when the argument under discussion goes against liberals, the reasoning expressed is a fight against bigotry. Extending that discussion to test what this means gets dismissed. I'm still not convinced of that difference.

In our society we say two only can marry

So let's end those sorts of bigoted statements and put everything on the table, and get the definition sorted from the perspective that it's time to right wrongs using the same logic liberals are pressing the argument with, and ignoring the bigotry where multi-partner arrangements are not recognised simply because liberals dont feel like having that discussion seems to be contrary to some of the reasons being lobbed at Conservatives.

Polygamy in the way that it is practiced in the Muslim world is at least based on complementarity, with all the women being married to the man rather than each other; and ordered towards the possibility of children.

Or, in other words, it's your own definition of marriage, rather than gay marriage, that opens the door to polyamory.

if you redefine marriage to mean something other than it means to accomadate an interest group then there is no reason why other people with other agendas cannot get it redefined again to accomodate their deepest desires

We've already redefined it multiple times - for instance, these days marriage law is about the individuals involved rather than about protecting the two families' property rights. The moment marriage became a matter for legislators, it became something for each parliament to redefine as it chooses, or not. If you don't like legislators deciding what marriage is, start campaigning for the govt to get out of the marriage business and leave it to churches.

However, none of that addresses the issue my comment raised - the fact that polyamorous, incestuous or bestial relationships follow no more logically from gay marriage than they do from heterosexual marriage. Current marriage law provides for two people to put their relationship on a legal footing as long as they're both consenting adults, arent too closely related, and as long as one is male and one female. A proposal to remove any one of those criteria is a proposal to be addressed on its merits. And the removal of any one criterion says nothing about the merits or otherwise of the arguments for removing another of the criteria. The ignorant and overexcitable might imagine that it does, but "what will the stupid people think?" is no basis for legislation.

Yet you suggest that because liberals want to discuss same sex marriage, and haven't tabled multi-partner marriage, it's not bigotry to dismiss the subsequent discussion.

Everyone's a bigot. The question is whether people have the bollocks to stand for something and argue for it, or whether they shrink from the prospect of someone calling them a bigot, a pinko, or whatever. The problem you guys have at the moment is that National politicians mostly don't have a conscience and need a focus group to tell them what they should think about something (the current PM being a prime example), which makes them sitting ducks for anyone with the courage of their convictions and the ability to formulate an argument. Under those circumstances, yes I wouldn't be surprised if we did end up with polyamory written into marriage law as well, but the reason for it would be the general spinelessness of the govt MPs, nothing to do with gay marriage.

I think the discussion on polygamy does logically follow, on the basis of change of definition, and on the reasons used to justify those changes. Whether you choose to acknoweldge the connection or not, and wether something needs to be logically dependent (according to your criteria) or not to follow are different issues.

Your statement PM of "everyone's a bigot" fails to pay heed to the point that the liberals calling people bigots as a means to shut down the conversation most certainly don't consiuder themselves bigoted, and would reject that idea quite strongly. Which is why it is important to call them out and get polygamy on the table now. Although, I'm expecting quite a few people to cave on that logic and agree there is no reason not to continue changing the meaning of marriage to encompass far more than gay marriage.

BTW, same sex relationship is not a modern idea and definitely has no future in the civilised world. It is a medieval behaviour in the form of socialist liberalism, which is a material freedom naturally demonstrated by animal creatures.

The New is purifying the material desire to liberate the conscience from physical attachments and thus transcends the person into being.

In this case, the so-called ‘modern’ is a political group consisting of the younger generation with old world ideas imposed by their peer’s political struggles.

Whether you choose to acknoweldge the connection or not, and wether something needs to be logically dependent (according to your criteria) or not to follow are different issues.

I fully accept that changes to legislation are generally based more on irrationalism, ignorance, prejudice and populism than logic, and on that basis it's obvious that idiots will leap to promoting polyamory on the basis that gay marriage was accepted. However, my comment was in response to the specific view that legislative provision for marriage involving polyamory, incest and bestiality logically follows from legislative provision for gay marriage. It doesn't, regardless of how many polyamorous ignoramuses imagine otherwise.

Your statement PM of "everyone's a bigot" fails to pay heed to the point that the liberals calling people bigots as a means to shut down the conversation most certainly don't consiuder themselves bigoted, and would reject that idea quite strongly.

It does pay heed to it - it just makes the point that people need to stand up for themselves when someone's calling them stupid names to try and shut them up. A right-wing version is the squawking of "anti-semitic" whenever someone mentions that maybe Israelis shouldn't be practicing "manifest destiny"-style colonialism in the 21st Century; the point is to not be shut up by obnoxious loudmouths employing those kind of tactics. The problem for conservatives here is not so much that braying liberal idiots are trying to cow MPs with cries of "bigot," so much as that the MPs involved don't stand for anything until focus groups tell them what it should be, so are easily cowed by cries of "bigot."

What naturally follows in a logical sense is conducive of freedom the moral order of objective organisation. You know, opposites attract naturally is that natural law. When same elements are arbitrated by political imposition, it is not natural and not by any means liberated.

To attempt at an objective outcome by arbitration is force and oppression. It is reasoned by 'framing' ie; diluting the abnormal effect of the defect to make it look normal and therefore accepted. In other words, the political imposition is shoved upon everyone's belief whether they agree or not in the name of (arbitrary) human rights and (material) freedom.

It is beyond the parameters of reason and rational logic. And since there is no biological background, same sex is not a scientific entity and it will never be proven legitimate. Instead it is imposed by socialisation and indoctrination of the innocent young minds.

And that reminds me of the one sad lack in the current campaign for marriage equality – it’s all about couples, and only couples. It would be good if it covered polyamory too. However, just as I supported civil unions even though I wished it went all the way to marriage equality, I will support this bill, of course, and then wait until we can take the next step.

I've attempted to point out the difference between positions that are supported by logic and positions that are supported by irrationalism and political opportunism. If you conflate the two, it isn't my problem.

I dont know why I have to keep saying this, but apparently I do: yes, I am aware that political decisions have little to do with logic, and that it is a problem. However, my comment on this thread was against the claim that marriages involving polyamory, incest and bestiality logically follow from gay marriage. They may well irrationally or opportunistically follow from it, but they do not logically follow from it.

Here's an argument from someone on KiwiBlog who thinks it's discriminatory that marriage is to be restricted to two people. Note that the whole push for same-sex marriage is under the banner of equality, meaning that those of the same-sex want to be equal to male/female marriages.

"What’s the problem with polygamy anyway?

Loving one person isn’t a choice, but the state says you can’t love two?

I know a few people in long term stable poly relationships, i think it’s discriminatory the way our legal system refuses to recognize their choices. In my view, any pair (or more) of consenting adults should be able to structure their affairs in anyway they wish.

As the poster points out, it already happens. The state does NOT prohibit polyamorous relationships. Only polyamorous marriage.

If there is informed consent from the 3 or more people involved, why is it your business, the business of the kirk or the business of the state?

How many times do we have to say it - marriage is a contract, nothing more, nothing less. You may, if you wish, dress yours up with religious ceremony, but that does not change the fact that it is state created and a state enforced contract.